pc-mcgarryBack in the dark days of the Sunday Sport, if the pair of tits decorating the front cover didn’t catch the eye from the newsstand, the ludicrous headline alongside said mammaries usually did; long before the term Fake News was even coined, the Sport specialised in the silly and patently untrue. I suppose ‘Post-Modern’ could be applied to the Sunday Sport if one was inclined to be kind and view it as a parody of a Fleet Street weekend tabloid in the same way that Viz continues to spoof those trashy mags that clog-up the waiting rooms of GP’s surgeries with uncanny accuracy. These days, it’s often difficult to distinguish between the Real McCoy and the pastiche, particularly when it is the attention-grabbing headline that provokes heated debate, whether or not the causal shopper opts for the paper.

Take yesterday’s Mail on Sunday. Emblazoned across its cover was the dramatic announcement – ‘POLICE CHIEF: HEATH WAS A PAEDOPHILE’! Those that see nothing beyond that headline therefore have every suspicion confirmed. They may not even notice the ‘POLICE CHIEF’ prefix; but the headline says a former Prime Minister who never married and was never successfully outed as gay was definitely fond of little boys. There you go, job done. Mr and Mrs Public don’t need to pursue the story any further; everything they need to know is there in those four little words uttered by yet another Chief Constable from a nondescript provincial police force desperate to justify the vast expense devoted to grave-pissing. It’s there in black-and-white, in print; it’s true.

It matters not that the Mail on Sunday has actually exhibited a degree of bravery in its recent efforts at debunking some of the urban myths that have sprouted online wings where the sexual peccadilloes of dead or elderly household names are concerned; with that one crass headline, they would appear to have undone months of hard investigative work that has exposed the stupidity of the police in giving airtime to fantasists from the outer limits of the internet. To most, the word of a Chief Constable means jack shit in 2017; who in possession of half-a-brain would believe anything the police say anymore? They are inherently corrupt and terminally corruptible. Yet, some out there are willing to take the word of Wiltshire Police’s Mike Veale as Gospel. Then again, is this an ingenious ruse by the paper to highlight just how dense the men running our police forces really are?

There have evidently been no lessons learnt from the notorious ‘credible and true’ gaffe when a thick senior officer takes it upon himself to deflect criticisms of police manpower being redirected to fishing parties by making a personal opinion official before the pointless investigation has even been completed. Despite the fantasy of the so-called Westminster Paedophile Ring being utterly trashed, Mike Veale will not let it go; he claims those who have ‘come forward’ in relation to Ted Heath’s alleged hobby have made allegations that are remarkably similar. Fancy that! It’s not as though any of these tired old tales haven’t been doing the rounds in the cyber kangaroo courts for years, with members of various forums sharing their lurid fantasies and upping the satanic angle with every retelling, is it?

Mike Veale declares he has ‘120%’ conviction about the allegations against the dead PM; but even the language used advertises his level of intelligence. ‘120%’ is the language of the dim, the language of the footballer being interviewed after he’s just stepped off the pitch, like saying ‘literally’ when you don’t mean literally. Yet after the Chief Plod issued his ‘120% conviction’ to the press, subsequent PR statements from the Wiltshire Police make a mockery of Veale’s comments.

According to a police spokesman, Veale is determined to ‘ensure the investigation is proportionate, measured and legal’ and the purpose of it all is to ‘impartially investigate allegations without fear of favour and go where the evidence takes us. It is not the role of the police to judge the guilt or innocence of people in our criminal justice system’. How does that square with a Chief Constable making his prejudices public in the midst of an ongoing investigation? And are the deceased included amongst those people ‘in our criminal justice system’?

Mike Veale’s idiocy was apparent from day one, when he launched his force’s foray into time-travelling from outside Ted Heath’s former home and later denied it was a witch-hunt as the cost began to rise towards £1 million. Investigative officers even turned up at the HQ of Private Eye to peruse back issues of the magazine and see if they could uncover any suspicious references to Heath’s unmarried status; yes, I know, this is a development straight out of Private Eye’s satirical middle section, but it really happened. Where next? The home of Eric Idle because he wrote a comedy novel in the mid-70s called ‘Hello Sailor’, which featured a gay Prime Minister? Don’t rule it out.

There have been fewer easier targets than Ted Heath when it comes to this kind of posthumous character assassination; as with Jimmy Savile, he had no wife or children to take the accusers and their allies in the police and law firms to task. Also, like Savile, his sexuality was the subject of much hearsay and gossip during his lifetime; and both were disliked by many. Death and the diminishing ‘outrage’ of homosexuality as a means of ruining a public figure have simply released hounds of an even more malicious nature. And if the prominent can be ripped to shreds with such callous ease it’s no wonder the ordinary are so susceptible to the same treatment.

Come the Revolution, as Wolfie Smith used to say, maybe some of our most detestable misery-mongers will find themselves up against the wall for the bop-bop-bop treatment; added to the likes of past offenders such as Mark Williams-Thomas, Keir Starmer, Tom Watson, Liz Dux, Vera Baird, Mark Watts and ‘Nick’, we may well see the name Mike Veale. I reckon his presence could be justified, judging by his recent behaviour. I’m convinced, anyway…120%.

© The Editor

13 thoughts on “THICK AS A BRICK

  1. “There have been fewer easier targets than Ted Heath when it comes to this kind of posthumous character assassination; as with Jimmy Savile, he had no wife or children to take the accusers and their allies in the police and law firms to task.”

    ^ Good piece. I was thinking about this aspect of it in particular earlier, and similarly I do wonder if the fact that Heath had no wife or children (and frankly, not all that many political allies either, certainly not these days) might be a factor.

    What we have here is that, if the Mail piece is accurate, 30+ people who don’t know each other have made allegations that seem to be of a similar nature. But Mr Veale seems to have forgotten that in the internet era, ‘similar fact’ allegations don’t mean as much as they used to.

    I see from social media that the ‘I believe Nick’ Twitter fraternity are back, tweeting the Mail article with approval, while anointing Mr Veale as the new approved head hunter of vast VIP paedo networks.

    But they can’t have it both ways. They can’t ‘believe Nick’, and also annoint Mr Veale as the new Paedofinder General, given that Mr Veale (again, assuming the Mail piece is accurate) does not, in fact, ‘believe Nick’.

    Someone on another forum had a look at the comments after the Mail article, and allegedly at least one commenter was trying to mount the old ‘this stacks up, the EU blackmailed him into bringing Britain into the EU because they knew he was a nonce’ conspiracy thesis. But this thesis is arrant nonsense. Heath was a true believer in the European project. He wouldn’t have needed to be blackmailed into supporting it, he wanted Europe to unify to avoid another world war breaking out ever again. He had himself fought in WW2, unlike most of the modern generation of politicians.

    Brexiteers are entitled to despise him and his political legacy for bringing the UK into the EU or as it was then the Common Market, but what they are not entitled to do is pretend that claims of child abuse made against him on a posthumous basis are more believable and credible on the basis that he was the PM when the UK joined the Common Market.

    By the way, none of this is to suggest that Heath was a nice person. He probably wasn’t, and I am open to the possibility that he might have been a protected high level ‘VIP’ child abuser. But at this point, I have to admit that I’m sceptical.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The marginally more credible blackmail theory is that it was the CIA who got at Heath.
      At the height of the Cold War remember, and with mainland Europe showing signs of moving leftwards politically (Vietnam demos, Paris 1968, etc), America needed its own ‘agent’ on the inside of the newly emerging power-block, the EEC, to exercise influence and to report back to mother-ship on any dangerous directions or personnel.
      Britain would be the ideal agent to fulfil that role, as the nominal ’51st State’ and still owing the USA vast amounts of money in war-debts, hence the plot to compromise Heath for their strategic benefit.
      Evidence ? Not much of that currently available, but some folk are 120% convinced.. . . . .

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I share your furstrations, Petunia, but I’m unable to find any ‘new’ quotation from Mr Veale in the article, and such quotations as there are come from an unnamed source.

    “A source said: ‘Mr Veale believes in them 120 per cent and thinks they are totally convincing.”

    This tells us that the Mail’s source is thick as a brick.

    “Another source said: ‘The police were initially sceptical about the allegations, but now believe them.”

    This seems to confirm that the Mail doesn’t have sources within Wilts Police. (Re the first quotation, would one or his staff refer to the Chief Constable as a Mr?) I suppose we might infer that either someone is trying to kill off the investigation, or someone is trying to revive the investigation, or someones are doing both. But I fear any such inference would be pointless. The Mail’s willingness to play both sides, and profit either way, seems particularly insidious, but this doesn’t even resemble a piece of journalism.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “The Mail’s willingness to play both sides, and profit either way, seems particularly insidious, but this doesn’t even resemble a piece of journalism.”

    Agreed, Misa. There’s a reason Dacre is the most respected editor on what used to be known as Fleet Street, even by those who hate what he stands for.


  4. ^ Just as an addendum to my post above, that specific article from Roy Greenslade doesn’t claim that Don Hale recalled that the Castle files contained an advert placed in ‘Magpie’ advertising sailing trips with Heath, but he (Hale) made that assertion on Twitter.


  5. “They are inherently corrupt and terminally corruptible.”

    I doubt they are more corrupt than any other large organisation: there are bad apples in every profession. But they are, as you suggest, increasingly regarded as absurd. I might cite examples of such absurdities but I’m sure you and your readers can equally readily recall their own.


  6. There is, as you rightly point out, a pattern: the dead “celeb” with no family to fight back, conspiracy theories and so forth. Is it worthwhile pointing out that Heath, as both PM and former PM, was a target for the IRA and as such constantly surrounded by Plod, thus making nefarious activities rather difficult? I think the most likely scenario is that Heath was largely a-sexual, something which may well baffle our sex obsessed media.


    1. From what I’ve read, Heath had no interest in sex whatsoever; I get the impression the idea of physical intimacy repulsed him. As you say, such a concept is unimaginable on ‘bonking’ old Fleet Street.


    1. Dissent Angle, I assume you refer to the comments that have emerged where he is being accused of defending child abuse? As far as I can see he hasn’t, though. He is only saying what gay ‘celebrities’, for example Boy George, Stephen Fry, to name a few, have said before. He is still a prize dickhead, mind you.


      1. The Alt-Right will either claim that it is ‘fake news’, pretend that he didn’t say what he said, go back-asswards in trying to defend him; or disown him. Should be fun seeing the Trumpkins at with each other.


Comments are closed.